Pervious Conc4

7/31/2019 Pervious Conc4

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pervious-conc4 1/145

ATTAINABLE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHOF PERVIOUS CONCRETE

PAVING SYSTEMS

by

ANN MARIE MULLIGAN

B.A. University of Central Florida, 1995B.S. University of Central Florida, 2003

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirementsfor the degree of Master of Science

in the Department of Civil Engineeringin the College of Engineering

at the University of Central FloridaOrlando, Florida

Summer Term2005



ii

ABSTRACT

The pervious concrete system and its corresponding strength are as important as its

permeability characteristics. The strength of the system not only relies on the

compressive strength of the pervious concrete but also on the strength of the soil

beneath it for support. Previous studies indicate that pervious concrete has lower

compressive strength capabilities than conventional concrete and will only support light

traffic loadings. This thesis investigated prior studies on the compressive strength on

pervious concrete as it relates to water-cement ratio, aggregate-cement ratio, aggregate

size, and compaction and compare those results with results obtained in laboratory

experiments conducted on samples of pervious concrete cylinders created for this

purpose. The loadings and types of vehicles these systems can withstand will also be

examined as well as the design of appropriate thickness levels for the pavement.

Since voids are supposed to reduce the strength of concrete 1% for every 5%

voids(Klieger, 2003), the goal is to find a balance between water, aggregate, and

cement in order to increase strength and permeability, two characteristics which tend to

counteract one another. In this study, also determined are appropriate traffic loads and

volumes so that the pervious concrete is able to maintain its structural integrity. The

end result of this research will be a recommendation as to the water-cement ratio, the

aggregate-cement ratio, aggregate size, and compaction necessary to maximize



iii

compressive strength without having detrimental effects on the permeability of the

pervious concrete system.

This research confirms that pervious concrete does in fact provide a lower compressive

strength than that of conventional concrete; compressive strengths in acceptable

mixtures only reached 1700 psi. Extremely high permeability rates were achieved in

most all mixtures regardless of the compressive strength. Analysis of traffic loadings

reinforce the fact that pervious concrete cannot be subjected to large numbers of heavy

vehicle loadings over time although pervious concrete would be able to sustain low

volumes of heavy loads if designed properly. Calculations of pavement thickness levels

indicate these levels are dependent on the compressive strength of the concrete, the

quality of the subgrade beneath the pavement, as well as vehicle volumes and loadings.



iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A warm thanks is extended to my family and friends for their unwavering support. A

deepest appreciation is sent to my advisor, Dr. Manoj Chopra, whose help, support, and

guidance allowed this thesis to come to fruition. I would also like to recognize my

committee members, Dr. Martin Wanielista and Dr. Shiou-San Kuo, for their help,

advice, and interest in improving the quality of this research.



v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................viii

LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................x

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................xii

1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Definition ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 History................................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Uses..................................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Advantages and Disadvantages ..................................................................................... 4

1.5 Objectives of Present Research ..................................................................................... 5

1.6 Outline of Thesis................................................................................................................6

1.6.1 Chapter 2.0 ................................................................................................................. 6

1.6.2 Chapter 3.0 ................................................................................................................. 6

1.6.3 Chapter 4.0 ................................................................................................................. 7

1.6.4 Chapter 5.0 ................................................................................................................. 7

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................ 8

2.1 Previous Studies................................................................................................................8

2.2 Water .................................................................................................................................26

2.3 Aggregate Type and Size ...............................................................................................28

2.4 Aggregate-Cement Ratio ...............................................................................................29

2.5 Compaction ......................................................................................................................30

2.6 Soil Type...........................................................................................................................30



vi

3.0 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................33

3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................33

3.2 Specific Gravity and Unit Weight of the Aggregate ....................................................33

3.3 Cylinders used for Testing .............................................................................................34

3.4 Permeability, Specific Gravity, and Compressive Strength of Pervious Concrete 38

3.5 Site Investigation of Existing Systems .........................................................................38

3.6 Design Vehicles ...............................................................................................................39

3.7 Pavement Thickness Design .........................................................................................39

4.0 FINDINGS.............................................................................................................................44

4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................44

4.2 Specific Gravity and Unit Weight of the Aggregate ....................................................44

4.3 Cylinders used for Testing .............................................................................................45

4.4 Permeability, Specific Gravity, and Compressive Strength of Pervious Concrete 47

4.4.1 Permeability .............................................................................................................. 47

4.4.2 Specific Gravity and Unit Weight ...........................................................................50

4.4.3 Compression Testing ............................................................................................... 53

4.5 Site Investigation of Existing Systems .........................................................................60

4.5.1 Parking Area 1 – Florida Concrete and Products Association ..........................60

4.5.2 Parking Area 2 – Sun Ray Store Away .................................................................62

4.5.3 Parking Area 3 – Strang Communications ...........................................................64

4.5.4 Parking Area 4 – Murphy Veterinary Clinic ..........................................................66

4.5.5 Parking Area 5 – Dental Office ..............................................................................68

4.6 Design Vehicles ...............................................................................................................70



vii

4.7 Pavement Thickness Design.........................................................................................75

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................80

5.1 Conclusion........................................................................................................................80

5.2 Recommendations for Future Research......................................................................82

APPENDIX A: CALCULATIONS .............................................................................................84

APPENDIX B: ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL GRAPHS ............................................89

APPENDIX C: TEST CYLINDER PHOTOGRAPHS AND GRAPHS.................................94

APPENDIX D: TABLES FOR PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN .................................126

REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................131



viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1.1 Pervious Concrete ................................................................................................. 2

Figure 1.1.2 Comparison of Conventional Concrete and Pervious Concrete ....................2

Figure 2.1.1 Compressive Strength vs. Time ........................................................................10

Figure 2.1.2 28 Day Compressive Strength vs. Unit Weight...............................................11

Figure 2.1.3 28 Day Compressive Strength vs. Water Content .........................................14

Figure 2.1.4 28 Day Compressive Strength vs. Unit Weight...............................................15

Figure 2.1.5 28 Day Compressive Strength vs. W/C Ratio .................................................16

Figure 2.1.6 Compressive Strength vs Air Content ..............................................................17

Figure 2.1.7 28 Day Compressive Strength vs. A/C Ratio ..................................................20

Figure 2.1.8 Compressive Strength vs Air Content – 4 sacks Cement .............................24

Figure 2.1.9 Compressive Strength vs Air Content – 5.5 sacks Cement ..........................25

Figure 2.1.10 Compressive Strength vs Air Content – 7 sacks Cement...........................25

Figure 4.4.1 Strength vs W/C Ratio ........................................................................................55

Figure 4.4.2 Strength vs A/C Ratio .........................................................................................55

Figure 4.4.3 Unit Weight vs Strength......................................................................................57

Figure 4.4.4 Unit Weight vs Porosity.......................................................................................57

Figure 4.4.5 Permeability vs A/C Ratio...................................................................................58

Figure 4.4.6 Permeability vs Compressive Strength ............................................................59

Figure 4.5.1. Parking Area 1 – FC&PA Office .......................................................................61

Figure 4.5.2. Parking Area 2 – Sun Ray Store Away...........................................................63

Figure 4.5.3. Parking Area 3 – Strang Communications .....................................................65



ix

Figure 4.5.4. Parking Area 4 – Murphy Veterinary Clinic ....................................................67

Figure 4.5.5. Parking Area 5 – Dental Office.........................................................................69

Figure 4.6.1 Design Vehicles ...................................................................................................73

Figure 4.6.2 Vehicle Class Weights vs Cylinder Compressive Strengths-Acceptable

Mixtures ...............................................................................................................................74

Figure 4.6.3 Vehicle Class Weights vs Cylinder Compressive Strengths-Unacceptable

Mixtures ...............................................................................................................................75



x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1.1 Relationship between Compressive Strength and W/C & A/C Ratios..........10

Table 2.1.2 Relationship between 28 Day Compressive Strength and Grading .............11

Table 2.1.3 Relationship between 28 Day Compressive Strength and Aggregate .........12

Table 2.1.4 Relationship between 28 Day Compressive Strength and Water Content..14

Table 2.1.5 Relationship between 28 Day Compressive Strength and Unit Weight.......15

Table 2.1.6 Relationship between 28 Day Compressive Strength and W/C Ratio .........16

Table 2.1.7 Relationship between Compressive Strength and A/C Ratios ......................19

Table 2.1.8 Traffic Categories..................................................................................................21

Table 2.1.9 Thickness Design by AASHTO Method ............................................................22

Table 2.1.10 Thickness Design by PCA Method ..................................................................23

Table 2.6.1 Subgrade Soil Types and Approximate k Values ............................................31

Table 2.6.2 AASHTO Soil Classification ................................................................................31

Table 2.6.3 ASTM Soil Classification......................................................................................32

Table 3.3.1 Mixtures and Corresponding Parameters .........................................................36

Table 3.7.1 Parameters and Values .......................................................................................43

Table 4.2.1. Specific Gravity Experiments - Aggregate .......................................................45

Table 4.4.1 Permeability Experiments ....................................................................................49

Table 4.4.2 Specific Gravity Experiments - Concrete ..........................................................51

Table 4.4.3 Maximum Compressive Strength .......................................................................54

Table 4.6.1 Design Vehicles.....................................................................................................70

Table 4.6.2 Weight Classifications ..........................................................................................72



xi

Table 4.6.3 Class 8 Vehicles – Weight Classification ..........................................................72

Table 4.7.1Minimum Pavement Thickness for 5% Trucks ..................................................76

Table 4.7.2 Minimum Pavement Thickness for 10% Trucks...............................................77





xii

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

A/C Ratio Aggregate-Cement Ratio

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ADT Average Daily Traffic

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

Cd Drainage Coefficient

Ec Elastic Modulus of Concrete in psi

f’c Compressive Strength of Pervious Concrete in psi

GY Total Growth Factor

in inches

J Load Transfer Coefficient

k Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in pci

lbs Pounds

min Minute

po Initial Serviceability Index

pt Terminal Serviceability Index

?PSI Change in Serviceability Index

PCA Portland Cement Association

psi Pounds per square inch

R Reliability in percent

So Standard Deviation

Sc Modulus of Rupture of Pervious Concrete in psi



xiii

sk per cu yd Sack per Cubic Yard

T Percentage of Trucks in ADT

Tf Truck Factor

vs Versus

W/C Ratio Water-Cement Ratio

Z Standard Normal Deviate



1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Definition

Pervious concrete is a composite material consisting of coarse aggregate, Portland

cement, and water. It is different from conventional concrete in that it contains no fines

in the initial mixture, recognizing however, that fines are introduced during the

compaction process. The aggregate usually consists of a single size and is bonded

together at its points of contact by a paste formed by the cement and water. The result

is a concrete with a high percentage of interconnected voids that, when functioning

correctly, permit the rapid percolation of water through the concrete. Unlike

conventional concrete, which has a void ratio anywhere from 3-5%, pervious concrete

can have void ratios from 15-40% depending on its application. Pervious concrete

characteristics differ from conventional concrete in several other ways. Compared to

conventional concrete, pervious concrete has a lower compressive strength, higher

permeability, and a lower unit weight, approximately 70% of conventional concrete.

Figure 1.1.1 provides a photograph of in-situ pervious concrete and Figure 1.1.2 shows

pervious concrete compared with conventional concrete.



2

Figure 1.1.1 Pervious Concrete

Figure 1.1.2 Comparison of Conventional Concrete and Pervious Concrete

1.2 History

Pervious concrete had its earliest beginnings in Europe. In the 19th century pervious

concrete was utilized in a variety of applications such as load bearing walls,

prefabricated panels, and paving. In the United Kingdom in 1852, two houses were

constructed using gravel and concrete. Cost efficiency seems to have been the primary

reason for its earliest usage due to the limited amount of cement used.



3

It wasn’t until 1923 when pervious concrete resurfaced as a viable construction material.

This time it was limited to the construction of 2-story homes in areas such as Scotland,

Liverpool, London, and Manchester. Use of pervious concrete in Europe increased

steadily, especially in the post World War II era. Since pervious concrete uses less

cement than conventional concrete and cement was scarce at the time, it seemed that

pervious concrete was the best material for that period. Once again housing

construction was its primary use. Pervious concrete continued to gain popularity and its

use spread to areas such as Venezuela, West Africa, Australia, Russia, and the Middle

East.

Since the United States did not suffer the same type of material shortages as Europe

after World War II, pervious concrete did not have a significant presence in the United

States until the 1970’s. Its use began not as a cheaper substitute for conventional

concrete, although that was an advantage, but for its permeability characteristics

(Ghafoori, 1995). The problem encountered in the United States was that of excessive

runoff from newly constructed areas. As more land development took place the amount

of impervious area increased. This produced an increase in runoff which in turn led to

flooding. This had a negative impact on the environment, causing erosion and a

degradation in the quality of water. Pervious concrete began in the states of Florida,

Utah, and New Mexico but has rapidly spread throughout the United States to such

states as California, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.



4

Although it had sluggish beginnings, the use of pervious concrete as a substitute for

conventional concrete has grown into a multi-functional tool in the construction industry.

1.3 Uses

Practical for many applications, pervious concrete is limited by its lack of durability

under heavy loads. This lack of resiliency restricts the use of pervious concrete to

specific functions. Pervious concrete is limited to use in areas subjected to low traffic

volumes and loads. Although once used as load bearing walls in homes (Ghafoori,

1995), pervious concrete is now utilized primarily in parking lots but does have limited

applications in areas such as greenhouses, driveways, sidewalks, residential streets,

tennis courts (limited to Europe), and swimming pool decks.

1.4 Advantages and Disadvantages

Pervious concrete is advantageous for a number of reasons. Of top concern is its

increased permeability compared with conventional concrete. Pervious concrete

shrinks less, has a lower unit weight, and higher thermal insulating values than

conventional concrete.

Although advantageous in many regards, pervious concrete has limitations that must be

considered when planning its use. The bond strength between particles is lower than

conventional concrete and therefore provides a lower compressive strength. There is

potential for clogging thereby reducing possibly its permeability characteristics. Finally,



5

since the use of pervious concrete in the United States is fairly recent, there is a lack of

expert engineers and contractors required for its special installation.

1.5 Objectives of Present Research

In this thesis, the effects of varying the components of pervious concrete has on its

compressive strength are investigated. The goal is to achieve a maximum compressive

strength without inhibiting the permeability characteristics of the pervious concrete. This

will be accomplished through extensive experiments on test cylinders created for this

purpose. Experiments include specific gravity tests, permeability tests, and

compression tests.

Loadings on pervious concrete are also an area of concern. Existing pervious concrete

pavements are studied. Data drawn from these pavements are utilized along with the

results of the compression tests to determine vehicular loadings and volumes that the

pervious concrete can sustain over time. Additionally, pavement thickness design will

be conducted on varying soil types and loadings.

As with any research, the experiments performed are subject to limitations. These

limitations are in regards to the type and size of aggregate used and the curing process.

These restrictions are discussed further in more detail.



6

1.6 Outline of Thesis

1.6.1 Chapter 2.0

Prior to any experiments, research must be conducted on similar areas of studies. Data

was gathered on results of previous experiments performed by researchers on

compressive strength of pervious concrete. A summary of their results and conclusions

are presented in a series of graphs and tables.

In order to achieve the best possible pervious concrete system, the elements that make

up the concrete must be analyzed. Water, aggregate, cement, and their corresponding

relationships with one another are discussed along with the potential impact each can

have on the strength and permeability of pervious concrete.

1.6.2 Chapter 3.0

All good research should be able to be duplicated by another. This chapter will discuss

procedures used in experiments conducted for this study. These experiments include

specific gravity, permeability, and compressive strength tests. Methods used for

determining traffic loadings and volumes on existing pervious concrete systems are also

examined. Explanation of calculations for pavement thickness design are also

addressed.



7

1.6.3 Chapter 4.0

Here, an in depth discussion about the results of all experiments is given and also

presented in tables and graphs. Comparisons are made between compressive strength

and varying ratios of water, cement, and aggregate. Acceptable vehicle types, their

loadings, and volumes are also provided. Pavement thickness design tables are

provided utilizing the data obtained from experiments.

1.6.4 Chapter 5.0

Conclusions about acceptable ratios, loadings, and pavement thicknesses are drawn

from the resulting data obtained from experimentation. Recommendations for future

research with pervious concrete and its usage are also given.



8

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Previous Studies

To create a pervious concrete structure with optimum permeability and compressive

strength, the amount of water, amount of cement, type and size of aggregate, and

compaction must all be considered. A multitude of experiments have been previously

conducted throughout the past few decades by a variety of researchers comparing

some or all of these elements. The results are presented in a series of tables and

graphs.

In 1976, V.M. Malhotra discussed pervious concrete as it relates to applications and

properties. He provided details on such properties as consistency, proportions of

materials, unit weight, compactibility, and curing in an attempt to maximize permeability

in the pervious concrete. Malhotra also conducted multiple experiments on various test

cylinders in an attempt to find a correlation between compressive strength and any of

the material’s properties. He concluded that the compressive strength of pervious

concrete was dependent on the water cement ratio and the aggregate cement ratio.

Table 2.1.1 and Figure 2.1.1 illustrate the relationship between compressive strength

and time using various water cement ratios and aggregate cement ratios. He also

concluded that even the optimum ratios still would not provide compressive strengths

comparable to conventional concrete. Malhotra went on to investigate the effects of

compaction on compressive strengths. Table 2.1.2 and Figure 2.1.2 show the



9

correlation between compressive strength and unit weight when different aggregate

cement ratios along with various aggregate gradings are employed. Malhotra also

experimented on different types of aggregates and their effect on compressive strength.

Table 2.1.3 shows the relationship between aggregate type and compressive strengths.



10

Table 2.1.1 Relationship between Compressive Strength and W/C & A/C Ratios

Aggregate

CementRatio(A/C)*

Water

CementRatio

(W/C)**

Age of Test

(days)

Density

(lb/ft3)

Cement

(lb/yd3)

CompressiveStrength

(psi)

6 0.38 3 125.8 436 1295

7 125.4 436 1660

28 124.8 436 2080

8 0.41 3 120 326 850

7 119.5 326 1055

28 119.4 326 1365

10 0.45 3 116.7 261 625

7 116.4 261 780

28 116.2 261 1015

Compressive Strength vs Time

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time, days

C o m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h , p

6:1, 0.38

8:1, 0.41

10:1, 0.45

Figure 2.1.1 Compressive Strength vs. Time

Source: Malhotra (1976),ACI Journal, Vol. 73, Issue 11, p633.*A/C Ratios are by volume.

**W/C Ratios are by weight.

(Aggregate Size ¾ “ Gravel)

A/C Ratio, W/C Ratio



11

Table 2.1.2 Relationship between 28 Day Compressive Strength and Grading

Grading

AggregateCement Ratio

(A/C) by Volume

Unit Weight

(lb/ft3)

Compressive

Strength (psi)

A* 8 119.2 1230

116.8 975

116 1090

113.2 815

B** 9 117.6 1040

113.6 825

112.4 745

C*** 7 117.2 1280

115.6 1030

114 1000114 950

28 Day Compressive Strength vs Unit Weight

500600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

112 114 116 118 120

Unit Weight, lb/ft3

C o m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h , p s i

A, 8:1

B, 9:1

C, 7:1

Figure 2.1.2 28 Day Compressive Strength vs. Unit Weight

* A = minus 3/4 in, plus 3/4 in** B = minus 3/4 in, plus 1/2 in*** C = minus 1/2 in, plus 3/8 in

Source: Malhotra (1976), ACI Journal, Vol 73, Issue 11, p634

(Water Content = 0.36)

Grading, A/C Ratio



12

Table 2.1.3 Relationship between 28 Day Compressive Strength and Aggregate

Type of Aggregate

Dry

Density(lb/ft

3)

Compressive

Strength(psi)

Rounded Quartzite Gravel 115 1250

Irregular Flint Gravel 99 700

Crushed Limestone 114 1000

Crushed Granite 106 1100

In 1988, Richard Meininger released results on laboratory experiments he had

conducted on pervious concrete. Research was carried out on multiple samples with

varying material properties. These properties included water cement ratio, aggregate

cement ratio, compaction, and curing time. Results were similar to those found by

Malhotra in 1976. Meininger discovered a relationship between the 28 day compressive

strength and water content while utilizing aggregate 3/8” in size and an aggregate

cement ratio equal to 6. This relationship is seen in Table 2.1.4 and Figure 2.1.3.

Meininger then investigated the correlation between the 28 day compressive strength

and unit weight. This association is shown in Table 2.1.5 and Figure 2.1.4. Lastly

Meininger once again studied the relationship between 28 day compressive strength

and water content ratio but altered aggregate cement ratio and aggregate size. The

results are seen in Table 2.1.6 and Figure 2.1.5. The results of these experiments led

Meininger to deduce an optimum water cement ratio that would maximize water

permeability but not necessarily maximize compressive strength. Meininger also

determined that pervious concrete provided a lower compressive strength than that of

Source: Malhotra (1976), ACI Journal, Vol. 73, Issue

11, p634

(Water Content = 0.40)



13

conventional concrete and should only be utilized in areas restricted to automobile use

or light duty areas.

Meininger went on to study the relationship between air content and compressive

strength. As expected, an increase in air content decreases the compressive strength

of concrete. This occurs because the space once occupied by aggregate now contains

air thereby reducing the structural material in the concrete. This result is presented

graphically in Figure 2.1.6.



14

Table 2.1.4 Relationship between 28 Day Compressive Strength and Water Content

Water Content (by

weight)

28 Day

CompressiveStrength

(psi)

Cement

(lb/yd3)

Water

(lb/yd3)

Aggregate

(lb/yd3) Air (%)

Permeability

(in.min)

0.51 1350 440 224 2640 22 5

0.47 1370 430 203 2575 23 4

0.43 1500 430 184 2570 25 10

0.39 1400 425 165 2550 27 30

0.35 1250 415 145 2520 29 40

0.31 1010 410 125 2430 32 51

0.27 870 395 106 2370 33 59

28 Day Compressive Strength vs. Water Content

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0.51 0.47 0.43 0.39 0.35 0.31 0.27Water Content


Figure 2.1.3 28 Day Compressive Strength vs. Water Content

(3/8” Coarse Aggregate – Aggregate/Cement Ratio = 6)

Source: Meininger (1988), Concrete International, Vol 10, Issue 8, p22



15

Table 2.1.5 Relationship between 28 Day Compressive Strength and Unit Weight

Water Content

Ratio (by weight)

Unit

Weight(lb/ft

3)

Compressive

Strength (psi)

Water Content

Ratio (by weight)

Unit

Weight(lb/ft

3)

Compressive

Strength (psi)

0.34 111 1355 0.31 107.5 975

110.5 1340 107.5 1050

112.5 1360 110 1100

114 1550 112 1395

120.8 1945 118 1540

122 2475 120.5 2095

28 Day Compressive Strength vs Unit Weight

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

1900

2100

2300

2500

105 110 115 120 125

Unit Weight, lb/ft3


0.34

0.31

Figure 2.1.4 28 Day Compressive Strength vs. Unit Weight

Source: Meininger (1988), Concrete International, Vol. 10, Issue 8, p21

W/C Ratio



16

Table 2.1.6 Relationship between 28 Day Compressive Strength and W/C Ratio

Aggregate

CementRatio

Aggregate

Size

Water

CementRatio

Compressive

Strength(psi)

Aggregate

CementRatio

Aggregate

Size

Water

CementRatio

Compressive

Strength(psi)

10 3/4" 0.27 625 6 3/8" 0.27 1100

0.35 750 0.31 1250

0.42 800 0.35 1400

0.51 775 0.39 1800

0.43 1650

6 3/4" 0.25 775 0.47 1400

0.33 1150 0.51 1700

0.37 1400 4 3/4" 0.25 900

0.41 1250 0.33 1950

0.49 1050 0.41 2050

0.49 2200

28 Day Compressive Strength vs Water Cement Ratio

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55Water Cement Ratio


10:1, 3/4"

6:1, 3/4"

6:1, 3/8"

4:1, 3/4"

Figure 2.1.5 28 Day Compressive Strength vs. W/C Ratio

Source: Meininger (1988), Concrete International, Vol. 10, Issue 8, p22

A/C Ratio, Agg. Siz



17

Compressive Strength vs Air Content

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Air Content, %


3/4" Aggregate

3/8" Aggregate

Figure 2.1.6 Compressive Strength vs Air Content

In 1995 extensive research was conducted by Nader Ghafoori on various aspects of

pervious concrete. In one study, he investigated various sites throughout the United

States that have utilized pervious concrete paving systems. His investigation led to a

comparison of compressive strength attained at each of these sites. He also examined

failures in the various pavements if any had occurred along with the water cement and

aggregate cement ratios. Next, Ghafoori inspected applications of pervious concrete

outside the United States and once again compared the compressive strengths.

Aggregate Size



18

Ghafoori also discusses, in detail, pavement thickness design for pervious concrete. He

deduces that compressive strength depends on the water cement ratio, the aggregate

cement ratio, compaction, and curing. He also provides a chart which displays the

effects of varying the aggregate cement ratio and compaction energy have on the

compressive strength and permeability. These results are shown in Table 2.1.7 and

Figure 2.1.7.



19

Source: Ghafoori (1995), Journal of Transportation

Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 6, p477

Table 2.1.7 Relationship between Compressive Strength and A/C Ratios

A/C

Ratio

Water

Content

CompactionEnergy

(kN-m/m3)

Permeability

(in/min)

Strength

(psi)

4 0.372 0.013 215 1650

0.033 125 2200

0.066 65 2850

0.099 60 3300

0.132 55 3500

0.165 30 4000

0.198 20 4200

0.264 15 4500

4.5 0.381 0.013 220 1450

0.033 140 2000

0.066 115 2300

0.099 110 2500

0.132 70 2700

0.165 60 3000

0.198 55 3200

0.264 50 3550

A/CRatio

Water Content

CompactionEnergy

(kN-m/m3)

Permeability(in/min)

Strength(psi)

5 0.39 0.013 230 1250

0.033 210 1800

0.066 150 2100

0.099 135 2300

0.132 115 2400

0.165 100 2500

0.198 75 2700

0.264 60 3000

6 0.418 0.013 240 1100

0.033 210 1700

0.066 190 2000

0.099 150 2100

0.132 150 2200

0.165 130 2300

0.198 120 2400

0.264 100 2600


Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 6, p477



20

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

4 4.5 5 6

A/C Ratio

C o m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h ( p

264

198

165

132

99

66

33

13

Figure 2.1.7 28 Day Compressive Strength vs. A/C Ratio

Ghafoori conducts extensive laboratory experiments on four different samples of

pervious concrete to determine relationships between compressive strength and

multiple variables such as curing, water cement ratio, aggregate cement ratio, and

compaction. The samples had varying water cement ratios and aggregate cement

ratios. The conclusions drawn as a result of these experiments indicated pervious

concrete is comparable to conventional concrete when considering shrinkage and depth

of wear. Of interesting note is Ghafoori claims that under the right circumstances,

proper proportioning of materials and correct compaction, pervious concrete can attain

compressive strengths of 3000 psi. This directly contradicts the findings of other

researchers.

Compaction

Energy



21

Finally, Ghafoori utilized the data he had obtained from his experiments on pervious

concrete and determined appropriate thickness levels for varying soil subgrades and

moduli of rupture. His calculations are based on different traffic categories. These

categories are provided in Table 2.1.8.

Table 2.1.8 Traffic Categories

Vehicle Type Use Category

Car Parking area and access lane A

Truck Access lane A-1

Shopping center entrance andB

service lanes

Bus Parking area and exterior lanes B

Bus Entrance and exterior lanes C

Single-unit

truckParking area and interior lanes B

Single-unit

truck

Entrance and exterior lanes C

Multiunit truck Parking area and interior lanes C

Multiunit truck Entrance and exterior lanes D


Engineering, p 480.



22

He went on to calculate thicknesses based on the AASHTO method and the PCA

method. These results are presented in Table 2.1.9 and Table 2.1.10.

Table 2.1.9 Thickness Design by AASHTO Method

Modulus Traffic Category

of

rupture(psi)

A(1) A(10) B(25) B(300) C(100) C(300) C(700) D(700)

k = 500 pci

600 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 5.5 9.5

550 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.2 3.5 3.5 5.8 9.9

500 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.0 6.0 10.0

450 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.5 6.4 11.0k = 400 pci

600 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.7 3.5 4.6 5.9 9.7

550 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.9 3.5 4.7 6.1 10.0

500 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 4.8 6.4 11.0

450 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.4 3.5 5.2 6.8 11.0

k = 300 pci

600 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.2 3.5 5.0 6.2 9.9

550 3.5 3.5 4.0 5.4 3.5 5.2 6.5 10.0

500 3.5 3.5 4.1 5.6 3.5 5.5 6.8 11.0

450 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.9 3.5 5.8 7.2 11.0

k = 200 pci

600 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.6 4.1 5.5 6.6 10.0

550 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.8 4.2 5.7 6.9 11.0

500 3.5 3.5 3.5 6.0 4.3 5.9 7.2 11.0

450 3.5 3.5 3.5 6.4 4.5 6.3 7.6 12.0

k = 100 pci

600 3.5 3.5 3.5 6.0 4.6 5.9 7.0 11.0

550 3.5 3.5 3.5 6.3 4.8 6.1 7.3 11.0

500 3.5 3.5 3.7 6.6 5.0 6.4 7.6 12.0

450 3.5 3.5 3.9 7.0 5.3 6.8 8.0 12.0

k = 50 pci

600 3.5 3.5 3.8 6.4 5.0 6.2 7.3 10.0

550 3.5 3.5 4.0 6.6 5.2 6.5 7.6 11.0

500 3.5 3.5 4.1 6.9 5.4 6.8 8.0 12.0

450 3.5 4.0 4.4 7.3 5.7 7.2 8.4 13.0

Source: Ghafoori (1995), Journal of Transportation Engineering, p 482.



23

Table 2.1.10 Thickness Design by PCA Method

Modulus Traffic Category

of rupture

(psi)

A(1) A(10) B(25) B(300) C(100) C(300) C(700) D(700)

k = 500 pci

600 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 6.5

550 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.5

500 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5

450 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.5

k = 400 pci

600 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 6.5

550 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.5

500 4.0 4.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.5

450 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.5

k = 300 pci

600 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.5

550 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.5

500 4.5 4.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.5

450 4.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.0

k = 200 pci

600 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 7.0

550 4.5 4.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 7.0

500 4.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.0

450 5.0 5.5 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 7.5 7.0

k = 100 pci

600 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 8.0

550 4.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 7.0 7.0 8.0

500 5.0 5.5 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.5 7.5 8.0

450 5.5 6.0 7.0 7.5 7.5 8.0 8.0 8.0

k = 50 pci

600 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.5 9.0

550 5.0 5.5 6.5 7.0 7.5 7.5 8.0 9.0

500 5.5 6.0 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.0 8.5 9.0

450 6.0 6.5 7.5 8.0 8.5 8.5 9.0 9.0

Source: Ghafoori (1995), Journal of Transportation Engineering, p 483.



24

In 2003, Paul Klieger performed experiments studying the effects of entrained air on the

strength and durability of conventional concrete. Although never utilizing the amount of

voids seen in pervious concrete (15%-35%), his research clearly shows the impact the

presence of air has on the performance of concrete. He concluded that the reduction in

compressive strength with the presence of air decreases as the size of aggregate

decreases and as the cement content decreases. These are both due to the reduction

in water. Graphical representations of his findings are shown in Figures 2.1.8, 2.1.9,

and 2.1.10.

Compressive Strength vs. Air Content

using Cement Content of 4 sk per cu yd

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 5 10 15 20

Air Content, %

C o m p r e s s i v e S t r

e n g t h , p

1.5"

3/4"

3/8"

Figure 2.1.8 Compressive Strength vs Air Content – 4 sacks Cement

Agg.

Size



25


using Cement Content of 5.5 sk per cu yd

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15

Air Content, %


1.5"

3/4"

3/8"

Figure 2.1.9 Compressive Strength vs Air Content – 5.5 sacks Cement


using Cement Content of 7 sk per cu yd

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

70007500

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Air Content, %


1.5"

3/4"

3/8"

Figure 2.1.10 Compressive Strength vs Air Content – 7 sacks Cement

Agg.

Size

Agg.

Size



26

Research conducted in the past 30 years has drawn similar conclusions. The

compressive strength of pervious concrete is strongly dependent on the water cement

ratio, the aggregate cement ratio, aggregate size, compaction, and curing. Experiments

also indicate that pervious concrete is most beneficial and should be restricted to areas

subjected to low traffic volumes. Researchers disagree as to whether pervious concrete

can consistently attain compressive strengths equal to conventional concrete.

2.2 Water

Just as water is the source of life for all living things it is the primary ingredient for the

beginning of all concrete. Without water or too little water, all that exists is a pile of

rocks and powder. The opposite can also adversely affect the development of concrete.

Too much water and concrete will become a soupy mixture resembling clam chowder

rather than a functional structural material.

Water is imperative for two reasons. One is to hydrate the cement and the second is to

create a workable substance. Hydration of the cement is necessary to form bonds with

the aggregate which in turn give concrete its strength. Conversely the presence of

water filled spaces within the concrete is detrimental to its strength. Indications are that

concrete strength is directly related to porosity and the water-cement ratio (W/C). This

is shown by the hydration process. As hydration of cement progresses, the volume of

solids increases. This volume is in the space previously occupied by the unhydrated

cement. The increase in solids volume indicates a decrease in porosity.



27

Porosity affects strength but strength itself is a result of bonding. Developing bonds in

mixtures with high W/C ratios is difficult due to the distances between particles. A high

W/C ratio means a mixture with a high porosity. Therefore a high porosity means

weaker bonds which in turn lead to lower strength.

The amount of water required to complete hydration and achieve maximum strength

has long been debated. As previously discussed, the strength in concrete is developed

through bonds. These bonds develop through a chemical reaction of cement and water.

This reaction produces calcium silicate hydrate. One gram of cement requires 0.22

grams of water in order to fully hydrate. However, the volume of the products of

hydration is greater than the volume of cement and water used in the reaction.

Specifically, it requires a volume of 1.2 mL of water for the products of hydration for 1mL

of cement. This equates to a W/C ratio of 0.42 for complete hydration (Aitcin and

Neville, 2003).

As noted previously, some of the water is required for workability of the concrete. This

added water is needed because of flocculation that occurs to the particles of cement.

This floc decreases workability and impedes hydration. It is possible to include

admixtures which eliminate flocculation. Water once used to counteract this effect is

now used for hydration, thereby reducing the amount of water needed.

Water and its application in pervious concrete are extremely critical. Since fines are

eliminated from pervious concrete, strength relies on the bond of the cement paste and



28

its interface with the aggregate. As with conventional concrete, too little water results in

no bonding and too much water will settle the paste at the base of the pavement and

clog the pores. The correct amount of water will maximize the strength without

compromising the permeability characteristics of the pervious concrete.

The concepts of hydration and workability will be considered when creating mixtures of

pervious concrete with varying ratios of cement, aggregate, and water. Water will be

added to various mixtures of aggregate and cement in experiments designed to

maximize hydration and optimize compressive strength. The goal is to determine an

appropriate range of W/C ratios that will yield high compressive strengths in the

pervious concrete.

2.3 Aggregate Type and Size

Generally the strength of aggregate is not considered when discussing the strength of

concrete. Failure of concrete specimens in a compression test usually occurs at the

aggregate-paste interface. This proves the adage “You are only as strong as your

weakest link.” This demonstrates that the bond strength is weaker than both the

strength of the paste and the strength of the aggregate. All indications are that the

strength of the concrete is dictated by the strength of the bond and not the individual

components.



29

However, in pervious concrete the cement paste is limited and the aggregate rely on the

contact surfaces between one another for strength. Therefore harder aggregate, such

as granite or quartz, would yield higher compression strength than a softer aggregate

like limestone.

Typically aggregate within the range of 3/8” and 3/4” are used because of enhanced

handling and placement. Anything larger would result in larger void spaces but would

provide a rougher surface.

Aggregate supplied for this study is limited to 3/8”. The type of aggregate used is

limestone and it’s specific gravity will be found through experiments conducted on the

rock later in the study.

2.4 Aggregate-Cement Ratio

The amount of aggregate relative to the amount of cement is another important feature.

The more cement paste available for compaction the higher the compressive strength.

Again this will clog the pores and is detrimental to the function of the pervious concrete.

Utilizing data obtained from prior research, a suitable range of A/C ratios will be used to

create various mixtures of pervious concrete to be tested for compressive strength.



30

2.5 Compaction

The amount of compaction can have considerable effects on the function of pervious

concrete. A higher degree of compaction that takes place when the concrete is placed

will directly lead to a higher level of strength in the concrete. This is due to the

densification of the concrete and the elimination of voids. These are the same voids

necessary for the permeability of the water. Too much compaction will therefore result

in a loss of permeability through the concrete and a failure of the pervious concrete

system.

Prior experiments conducted by other researchers on pervious concrete utilized various

techniques for compaction such as rollers, hand tamping, and Proctor tests. In order to

quantify the amount of compaction applied to each of the test cylinders, the standard

and modified Proctor compaction tests were used.

2.6 Soil Type

One of the factors that pavement thickness is dependent on is the modulus of subgrade

reaction,k, or the type of soil beneath the concrete. Research on different types of soils

provided information of various soils and their corresponding k values. These soil types

and values are provided in Table 2.6.1, Table 2.6.2, and Table 2.6.3.



31

Source: Huang (2004), Pavement Analysis and Design, p.564.

Sources: Huang (2004), Pavement Analysis and Design, p.328.Das 2002 Princi les of Geotechinical En ineerin . 84.

Table 2.6.1 Subgrade Soil Types and Approximate k Values

Type of Soil Supportk Values

(pci)

Fine-grained soils in which silt and Low 75-120

clay-size particles predominate

Sands and sand-gravel mixtures with Medium 130-170

moderate amounts of silt and clay

Sands and sand-gravel mixtures High 180-220

relatively free of plastic fines

Cement-treated subbasesVery High 250-400

Table 2.6.2 AASHTO Soil Classification

Class Soil Type Subgrade Ratingk Value

(pci)

A-1-a Stone fragments, gravel, and sand Excellent to Good 400-710

A-1-b Stone fragments, gravel, and sand Excellent to Good 250-590

A-2-4 Silty or clayey gravel and sand Excellent to Good 290-710




A-3 Fine Sand Excellent to Good 200-340

A-4 Silty Soils Fair to Poor 100-300

A-5 Silty Soils Fair to Poor 50-180

A-6 Clayey Soils Fair to Poor 50-220

A-7-5 Clayey Soils Fair to Poor 50-220

A-7-6 Clayey Soils Fair to Poor 50-220



32

Sources: Huang (2004), Pavement Analysis and Design, p.328.Das 2002 Princi les of Geotechinical En ineerin . 85-91.

Table 2.6.3 ASTM Soil Classification

Class Soil Type k Value(pci)

GP Poorly graded gravel 290-590

GW Well-graded gravel 590-710

GM Silty gravel 250-710

GC Clayey gravel 250-420

SW Well-graded sand 250-420

SM Silty sand 200-420

SP Poorly graded sand 200-290

SCClayeysand

200-250

ML Silt gravel or sand 140-230

MH Elastic silt with gravel or sand 120-180

CL Lean clay with gravel or sand 140-230

CH Fat clay with gravel or sand 100-140

OL Organic clay or silt with gravel or sand 120-180

OH Organic clay or silt with gravel or sand 100-140



33

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter focus on the procedures utilized for creating and testing pervious

concrete is done. To draw reasonable conclusions in regards to choosing appropriate

mixture ratios for pervious conc rete, testing and experimentation must be conducted.

Compressive strength is best determined by creating pervious concrete and subjecting

it to loadings until failure.

Traffic loadings and volumes of future sites will be determined by evaluating existing

sites with similar characteristics. Precise traffic counts of these existing sites are the

most accurate for developing this data. Due to time constraints, however, traffic counts

were not feasible for this study. Transportation charts were used to make estimates of

traffic volumes and loadings.

3.2 Specific Gravity and Unit Weight of the Aggregate

The A/C ratio is by volume and not by weight. The unit weight of the aggregate was

required for calculating correct volumes for the ratio. Unit weight was obtained by

conducting specific gravity tests. Two experiments were conducted in accordance with

ASTM C29/29M-97. A quantity of aggregate was obtained, oven dried, and its weight

recorded (W3). A container was then filled with water up to a certain level, weighed,



34

and its weight recorded (W1). The water was then emptied from the container and

replaced by the aggregate. Water was then reintroduced into the container until the

previous level was reached. The container with the water and the aggregate was then

weighed (W2). The mass of aggregate equal to the volume of water removed from the

container (W4) is then determined by adding W1 and W3 and subtracting W2. Specific

gravity is then calculated by dividing W3 by W4.

3.3 Cylinders used for Testing

Although much research has been conducted in the past on its compressive strength,

testing must still be accomplished in order to understand the nature of pervious

concrete. Prior research is an excellent source, however, to develop parameters for

that testing. Based on prior readings, thirty-two (32) test cylinders would provide a

representative sample of varying mixture ratios (i.e. A/C ratio and W/C ratio). The

cylinders used for testing were one time use only. These cylinders are four inches in

diameter and eight inches in height. The pervious concrete was made from 3/8 inch

aggregate and Type I Portland Cement. The test cylinders used and the pervious

concrete mixed are in accordance with ASTM C31/C31M-03a. Eight separate batches

with four different A/C ratios and two methods of compaction (Standard Proctor and

Modified Proctor) were created. The Standard Proctor compaction test requires test

cylinders be filled in three layers. Each layer receives twenty-five blows with a hammer

weighing 5.5 lbs through a distance of twelve inches. The Modified Proctor compaction



35

test requires test cylinders be filled in five layers. Each layer also receives twenty-five

blows with a hammer, however, this hammer weighs 10 lbs and is dropped a distance of

eighteen inches. The Standard Proctor compaction test provided 341 kN-m/m3 of

energy or 50 psi of vertical force while the Modified Proctor compaction test provided

1544 kN-m/m3 of energy or 223 psi of vertical force. See Appendix A for calculations.

The W/C ratio is not required for the mixture parameters and is calculated after

completion of the mixture. Since water is added to the aggregate and cement until a

sheen is developed throughout the mix, it is impossible to have this value prior to

mixing. The amount of water utilized is converted to weight and divided by the amount

of cement used by weight to calculate the W/C ratio used for each mixture.

Once the unit weight of the aggregate is calculated, correct volumes of aggregate and

cement are determined for mixing. Each mixture provided enough pervious concrete for

four cylinders with the exception of Mixture 4. In this batch, an incorrect amount of

aggregate is used thereby affecting the amount of pervious concrete produced. The

amount of pervious concrete created yielded enough for only three cylinders. Four

cylinders per mixture allowed for two cylinders with identical parameters (A/C ratio, W/C

ratio, and compaction energy). Table 3.3.1 provides a breakdown of each mixture and

its corresponding parameters.



36

Table 3.3.1 Mixtures and Corresponding Parameters

Mix No.

Water CementRatio

(by weight)

AggregateCement Ratio(by Volume)

AggregateContent(lb/yd3)

CementContent(lb/yd3)

Water Content(lb/yd3)

1 1111 0.52 4.00 2488 622 454

1112

1121

1122

2 2111 0.39 4.00 2488 622 343

2112

2121

2122

3 3211 0.44 5.00 2488 498 285

3212

32213222

4 4211 0.35 4.00 2488 622 286

4212

4221

4222 ---Void--- ---Error--- ---Void--- --Error-- ---Void---

5 5311 0.33 6.00 2488 415 172

5312

5321

5322

6 6311 0.38 6.00 2488 415 200

6312

63216322

7 7411 0.32 7.00 2488 355 143

7412

7421

7422

8 8411 0.39 7.00 2488 355 171

8412

8421

8422



37

The cylinders were filled with pervious concrete and immediately upon completion of

leveling the surface, each cylinder was covered with 6 mil thick polyethylene plastic for

proper curing. The cylinders were left in this condition for seven days.

After seven days, the molds were removed from sixteen (16) of the cylinders. These

sixteen cylinders were then wrapped in the 6 mil thick plastic. The bottoms of the

remaining fifteen (15) cylinders were removed and covered with the 6 mil plastic. These

fifteen cylinders were left within the confines of the mold for future permeability testing.

The cylinders remained in this state for an additional three weeks. After a total of 28

days, the plastic was removed from all cylinders and each cylinder was weighed.

Permeability experiments were then performed on the fifteen cylinders and specific

gravity tests were performed on all thirty-one cylinders. Curing of all the pervious

concrete was limited to outside conditions.

There are no standard methods for determining the consistency of pervious concrete.

Standard slump tests would provide no slump or very little slump due to the consistency

of the material and are therefore not used (Malhotra, 1976 and Ghafoori, 1995). Visual

inspection of the concrete seems to be the measure by which consistency is measured.

All aggregate should be covered with cement and water until a sheen is developed.



38

3.4 Permeability, Specific Gravity, and Compressive Strength of Pervious Concrete

Each of the fifteen cylinders was suspended above the ground surface twelve inches in

order to allow for the free flow of water. A hose provided a constant flow into the

cylinder in order to maintain a head four inches above the surface of the pervious

concrete. Once a constant flow was established, a container below the cylinder was

able to capture the amount of water flowing through the concrete for a period of one

minute. After completion of the permeability tests, specific gravity experiments were

conducted on each cylinder in a manner similar to those previously performed on the

aggregate in order to determine unit weight, void ratio, and porosity.

Lastly, the 30 day compressive strength was determined on each cylinder using the

SATEC Universal Testing Machine with 250 kip capacity. Each cylinder was equipped

with a neoprene cap on its top and base and was loaded at a rate of 50 psi/sec until

failure. Data was recorded in the form of load in pounds and displacement in inches.

This data was then interpreted in the form of graphs.

3.5 Site Investigation of Existing Systems

To determine the longevity of pervious concrete paving systems, it is necessary to

investigate current parking areas utilizing pervious concrete. Five sites in the Central

Florida area were examined for signs of wear and areas of failure. The type of traffic as

well as the number of vehicles each of these areas is subjected to is another area of



39

concern. On-site investigations were performed to locate areas in the paving surfaces

that have failed. The Trip Generation Manual was utilized to estimate the amount of

traffic each of these areas is subjected to based on the type of business.

3.6 Design Vehicles

Vehicles taken into consideration when designing roadways are referred to as design

vehicles. The weight and dimensions of those vehicles expected to use the roadway

are required in order to ensure a proper design. After completion of the experiments

and after all of the data is analyzed, it is necessary to study what types of vehicles the

pervious concrete will be able to sustain over a long period of time without suffering

significant damage. Design vehicles defined by AASHTO and vehicle manufacturers

will be considered for the purposes of this study.

3.7 Pavement Thickness Design

Pavement thickness design is dependent on many variables. These include but are not

limited to the traffic volume, traffic load, drainage, quality of the subgrade, and strength

of the pervious concrete. This study will utilize the AASHTO method for determining

appropriate thickness levels for various traffic volumes, loadings, and subgrades.

The first step in calculating thickness levels is to determine the amount and type of

traffic to travel on the pavement and equate that to the ESAL or equivalent single axle



40

load. The ESAL equates the loads of all vehicles traveling on the roadway to a

standard measurement, an 18-kip single axle load. It is given by the following equation:

)365)(L)(D)(GY)(T)(T)( ADT(ESAL f =

where ADT = Average Daily Traffic GY = Total Growth Factor

T = Percentage of Trucks D = Directional Factor

Tf = Truck Factor L = Lane Distribution

For this study the average daily traffic will be varied from 500 to 3500 in increments of

250. The percentage of trucks will also vary, ranging from 5% to 20%. The total growth

factor is based on a life span of 20 years and a growth rate of 4%. This number is

obtained from a chart provided in Appendix D and results in a factor of 29.78. The

directional factor and lane distribution are concerned with the number of lanes in each

direction. Considering these calculations are for a parking lot, it is assumed that it is

one directional and all vehicles enter and exit over relatively the same pavement.

Therefore these values are 100% or 1 for calculation purposes.

Once these variables are determined and the ESAL is calculated the thickness of the

pavement is determined by AASHTO’s 1993 equation for thickness design.



41

Source: Huang (2003), Pavement Analysis and Design , p. 580.

46.87oR)1D/(10x624.11

)]5.15.4/(PSIlog[06.0)1Dlog(35.7SZWlog

++−∆

+−++=

}])k/E/(42.18D[63.215

)132.1D(CSlog{)p32.022.4( 25.0C

75.0

75.0

dct − −−+

where Z = Standard Deviate J = Load Transfer Coefficient

So = Standard Deviation ?PSI = Change in Serviceability Index

Ec = Elastic Modulus of Concrete po = Initial Serviceability Index

k = Modulus of Subgrade Reaction pt = Terminal Serviceability Index

Sc = Modulus of Rupture of Concrete D = Pavement Thickness

Cd = Drainage Coefficient f’c = Compressive Strength

W = ESAL

The standard deviate is based on reliability. The reliability used for this study is 80%

and is obtained from the design chart provided in Appendix D. Using a reliability of 80%

the standard deviate is found in the design chart also provided in Appendix D.

The elastic modulus of concrete is based on the compressive strength of the pervious

concrete (f’c). The equation for finding the elastic modulus is given by:

'cc f 57000E =



42

The modulus of subgrade reaction is dependent on the type of soil beneath the pervious

concrete. Research indicates that typical soils range from 50-400 pci and these are the

values utilized in this study.

The modulus of rupture of conventional concrete falls within the range of 8vf’c to 10vf’c

(Huang, 2003). In 1976, Malhotra calculated the modulus of rupture of pervious

concrete to be 10.8 to 31.0% of the compressive strength. For the purposes of this

research the following equation is used which is 22% of the compressive strength of the

pervious concrete.

'

cc f 9S =

The drainage coefficient is dependent on the expected exposure of the concrete to

saturation levels and the amount of time required to remove water from the system.

This value is obtained from a design table provided in Appendix D.

The compressive strength is the maximum value obtained from testing from an

acceptable cylinder.

The load transfer coefficient is dependent on the traffic volume and varies as the ESAL

changes. These values are provided in a table in Appendix D.



43

The initial serviceability index represents the condition of the pavement when newly

constructed. The terminal serviceability index is the lowest index reached before any

rehabilitation of the pavement surface. The change in serviceability indexes is the

subtraction of the terminal index from the initial index.

All variables used in calculating pavement thicknesses are provided in Table 3.7.1.

Table 3.7.1 Parameters and Values

Fixed Variable

Z -0.841 ADT 500-3500

So 0.3 T .05-.20

po 4.5 k 50-400

pt 2 J 2.8-3.1

?PSI 2.5

Sc 371

Cd 1.1

Ec 2350170

f'c 1700

GY 29.78

Tf 0.24

D 1

L 1



44

4.0 FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter will extensively discuss the results of the experiments described in the

previous chapter. Comparisons will be provided of relevant relationships between

water, aggregate, and cement to show the influence each has on one another. Tables

indicating minimum pavement thickness levels will also be given.

4.2 Specific Gravity and Unit Weight of the Aggregate

Two experiments were conducted in order to determine the specific gravity and unit

weight of the aggregate used in this research. Both tests yielded an identical result.

The specific gravity of the aggregate was calculated to be 2.36 and its corresponding

unit weight was determined to be 147.53 lb/ft3. The results from both tests are provided

in Table 4.2.1.



45

Table 4.2.1. Specific Gravity Experiments - Aggregate

ItemTest Test

1 2

Mass of container + water (W1)(lbs)

15.89 15.78

Mass of container + water +aggregate (W2)(lbs)

20.6 20.49

Mass of aggregate (W3)(lbs) 8.16 8.16

Mass of equal volume of water as the aggregate

(W4=(W1+W3)-W2)(lbs)3.45 3.45

Specific Gravity (G=W3/W4) 2.36 2.36

Unit Weight (lb/ft3) 147.53 147.53

4.3 Cylinders used for Testing

Photographs taken of the side and base of each cylinder are provided in Appendix C.

The visible physical characteristics of the cylinders can provide preliminary information it

prior to subjecting the cylinders to any tests. For example, too much water in a mixture

would cause the cement to sink to the bottom of the cylinder. The result would be

clogging of the void spaces in the base of the concrete and prevent permeability of

water. Visually the bottom portion of the cylinder would be solid, there would be no

voids, and it might appear as if it was conventional concrete. Higher compressive

strengths and lower permeability rates can be expected from these cylinders due to the

lack of void spaces. With the movement of the cement to the bottom of the cylinder, the



46

top portion might be weaker than the bottom. Failure would begin at the top surface

and work its way down the cylinder. The result might not be an abrupt failure but a long

process in which the loading may actually increase after initially crushing the top and

continue until the entire cylinder fails.

In examining the photographs of all the mixtures, predictions can be made about their

expected behaviors. All the cylinders in mixture 1 have bases that are completely

clogged. Expectations are that the cylinders will have little or no permeability

capabilities and provide higher compressive strengths when compared to the other

cylinders.

Mixture 2 produced cylinders that still have clogging at their bottoms but not to the same

degree as in mixture 1. Since the A/C ratio is identical, the decrease in clogging is

strictly due to the W/C ratio. Mixture 2 has less water therefore it did not wash all of the

cement to the bottom. Permeability rates can be expected to increase from those in

mixture 1 but compressive strength will be less than mixture 1 due to its departure from

conventional concrete characteristics.

Photographs of the bases of mixture 3 cylinders appear to be slightly better than mixture

2. Clogging is still apparent and expectations are that the permeability rates may be

comparable to mixture 2. Nothing suggests that the strength of the cylinders in mixture

3 will be lower or higher than the strength of mixture 2.



47

Mixture 4 gives the appearance of having permeability rates comparable to mixture 2.

Clogging is prevalent on the bases of the cylinders but interestingly there does not

appear to be as much clogging on the sides of the cylinders as in mixture 2. This leads

to the assumption that the voids are dispersed more evenly throughout mixture 4

thereby producing a better permeability rate. An even dispersement of voids lends to

the assumption that the aggregate is better aligned and able to withstand higher

compressive loads than in mixture 2.

The remaining mixtures have an increase in the A/C ratios. These cylinders appear

“dry” as if not enough cement was present to properly coat the aggregate and produce a

solid bond. Some of the cylinders show a small amount of clogging on the base but the

remainder of the cylinder is free from any type of clogging. It is difficult to see the

cement paste surrounding the aggregate. Expectations are that the remaining four

mixtures will provide extremely high permeability rates but very low compressive

strengths due to lack of correct bonding between aggregate.

4.4 Permeability, Specific Gravity, and Compressive Strength of Pervious Concrete

4.4.1 Permeability

Permeability rates are consistent with expectations from visual observations of the

cylinders. The results of the permeability tests are provided in Table 4.4.1.

Permeability rates in the first mixtures are considerably less than the later mixtures. In



48

fact rates from mixtures 1 and 2 are limited by the amount of cement that had collected

in the base of the cylinder. Permeability rates are also relatively consistent with

compaction and density. Higher compaction energies increase the density thereby

reducing the porosity of the concrete. The reduction in porosity leads directly to a

reduction in the permeability rate. Mixtures 5, 6, 7, and 8 indicate a reduction in

permeability rates ranging from 50-68% when modified Proctor compaction is utilized.

Permeability rates obtained in this experiment are also consistent with what prior

researchers have found. Although a wide range of permeability rates were seen from

this experiment, they are not typically the limiting factor. Water flow through pervious

concrete is usually restricted by the permeability rates of the soil beneath the concrete.

This being said, the permeability rates obtained from mixture 1 would not be acceptable

because the water flow was limited to almost nothing. Higher permeability rates in

pervious concrete is advantageous as it allows for clogging of the void spaces without

being detrimental to the flow of water through the concrete.



49

Table 4.4.1 Permeability Experiments

Mix No.Water Cement

Ratio (by weight)

AggregateCement

Ratio (byVolume) Compaction

Weight of

Cylinder andConcrete (Wet)

Weight of

Concrete(Dry)

Permeability(in/hr)

1 1111 0.52 4.00 Standard 7.18 6.78

1112 Standard 7.16 6.83 0

1121 Modified 7.32 6.92

1122 Modified 7.40 7.07 138

2 2111 0.39 4.00 Standard 7.20 6.82

2112 Standard 7.04 6.69 655

2121 Modified 7.10 6.70

2122 Modified 6.98 6.65 1085

3 3211 0.44 5.00 Standard 6.88 6.50

3212 Standard 6.90 6.57 1085

3221 Modified 6.90 6.483222 Modified 6.92 6.59 1034

4 4211 0.35 4.00 Standard 6.66 6.30

4212 Standard 6.96 6.63 1241

4221 Modified 7.08 6.72

4222 ---Void--- ---Error--- Modified ---Error--- ---Void--- ---Error---

5 5311 0.33 6.00 Standard 6.62 6.24

5312 Standard 6.64 6.31 2068

5321 Modified 6.68 6.28

5322 Modified 6.76 6.45 1310

6 6311 0.38 6.00 Standard 6.60 6.20

6312 Standard 6.58 6.25 2137

6321 Modified 6.86 6.48

6322 Modified 6.82 6.49 1447

7 7411 0.32 7.00 Standard 6.46 6.04

7412 Standard 6.40 6.09 2688

7421 Modified 6.76 6.36

7422 Modified 6.68 6.37 1378

8 8411 0.39 7.00 Standard 6.56 6.14

8412 Standard 6.52 6.21 2412

8421 Modified 6.96 6.54

8422 Modified 6.88 6.55 1206



50

4.4.2 Specific Gravity and Unit Weight

Specific gravity tests were performed on all cylinders in order to obtain unit weight and

porosity. The results of these experiments are given in Table 4.4.2. Porosity ranges

from 3-29% which is consistent with other researchers’ findings. The lower porosity

percentages are limited to mixtures 1 and 2. Once again the high amount of cement is

the contributing factor in this lower porosity. The cement, when mixed with water, work

to clog the void spaces in the pervious concrete. The result is concrete that more

closely resembles conventional concrete than pervious concrete. Researchers have

also concluded that the unit weight of pervious concrete is usually 70-75% that of

conventional concrete. The results from testing these cylinders are no exception.



51

Table 4.4.2 Specific Gravity Experiments - Concrete

Item Cylinder

1111 1112 1121 1122 2111 2112 2121 2122Mass of container +

water (W1)19.14 19.18 19.03 18.98 19.16 18.88 18.98 19.04

Mass of container +water + concrete (W2)

22.60 22.60 22.50 22.52 22.72 22.25 22.72 22.28

Mass of concrete(W3)

6.78 6.83 6.92 7.07 6.82 6.69 6.70 6.65

Mass of equal volume

of water as theconcrete

(W4=(W1+W3)-W2)

3.32 3.41 3.45 3.53 3.26 3.32 2.96 3.41

Specific Gravity

(G=W3/W4)2.04 2.00 2.01 2.00 2.09 2.01 2.26 1.95

Unit Weight of

Concrete (lb/ft3)

116.54 117.40 118.95 121.52 117.23 114.99 115.16 114.31

Volume of Concrete

(ft3)

0.053 0.055 0.055 0.057 0.052 0.053 0.047 0.055

Volume of Voids (ft3) 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.006 0.005 0.011 0.004

Void Ratio 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.11 0.09 0.23 0.06

Porosity 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.18 0.06

Item Cylinder

3211 3212 3221 3222 4211 4212 4221 4222

Mass of container +water (W1)

19.22 18.96 18.82 18.90 18.90 18.84 19.12 Void


22.60 22.40 22.22 22.34 22.32 22.44 22.56 Void


6.50 6.57 6.48 6.59 6.30 6.63 6.72 Void



(W4=(W1+W3)-W2)

3.12 3.13 3.08 3.15 2.88 3.03 3.28 Void

Specific Gravity

(G=W3/W4)2.08 2.10 2.10 2.09 2.19 2.19 2.05 Void

Unit Weight of

Concrete (lb/ft3)

111.73 112.93 111.38 113.27 108.29 113.96 115.51 Void

Volume of Concrete

(ft3)

0.050 0.050 0.049 0.050 0.046 0.049 0.053 Void

Volume of Voids (ft3) 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.008 0.012 0.010 0.006 Void

Void Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.26 0.20 0.11 Void

Porosity 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.21 0.17 0.10 Void



52

Table 4.4.2 Specific Gravity Experiments - Concrete

Item Cylinder

5311 5312 5321 5322 6311 6312 6321 6322


18.88 19.04 18.90 19.10 18.70 18.92 18.74 18.96


22.30 22.44 22.48 22.44 22.34 22.14 22.20 22.36


6.24 6.31 6.28 6.45 6.20 6.25 6.48 6.49



(W4=(W1+W3)-W2)

2.82 2.91 2.70 3.11 2.56 3.03 3.02 3.09

Specific Gravity

(G=W3/W4)2.21 2.17 2.33 2.07 2.42 2.06 2.15 2.10

Unit Weight of Concrete (lb/ft

3)

107.26 108.46 107.95 110.87 106.57 107.43 111.38 111.55

Volume of Concrete

(ft3)

0.045 0.047 0.043 0.050 0.041 0.049 0.048 0.050


Void Ratio 0.29 0.25 0.34 0.17 0.42 0.20 0.20 0.17

Porosity 0.22 0.20 0.26 0.14 0.29 0.17 0.17 0.15

Item Cylinder

7411 7412 7421 7422 8411 8412 8421 8422


18.88 18.90 18.94 19.02 18.76 19.12 18.92 19.00


22.26 22.26 22.50 22.38 22.30 22.20 22.48 22.34


6.04 6.09 6.36 6.37 6.14 6.21 6.54 6.55



(W4=(W1+W3)-W2)

2.66 2.73 2.80 3.01 2.60 3.13 2.98 3.21

Specific Gravity

(G=W3/W4)2.27 2.23 2.27 2.12 2.36 1.98 2.19 2.04

Unit Weight of Concrete (lb/ft

3)

103.82 104.68 109.32 109.49 105.54 106.74 112.41 112.59

Volume of Concrete

(ft3)

0.043 0.044 0.045 0.048 0.042 0.050 0.048 0.051


Void Ratio 0.36 0.33 0.30 0.21 0.40 0.16 0.22 0.13

Porosity 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.17 0.28 0.14 0.18 0.12



53

4.4.3 Compression Testing

All of the mixing, ratios, calculations, and testing culminate into the final experiment,

compression testing. Graphs indicating loading versus displacement over time for each

cylinder are given in Appendix C. Maximum compressive strengths attained for each of

the cylinders are provided in Table 4.4.3. Again results are consistent with visual

observations. Mixtures 5, 6, 7, and 8 provide the least compressive strengths of all the

mixtures. This is due to the lack of cement to bond the aggregate together. Mixtures 1,

2, 3, and 4 yielded the highest compressive strengths. However the strengths yielded

by mixtures 1 and 2 are deceptively high. Cement that settled at the bottom of the

cylinders in these mixtures is what gives the concrete its strength. Under real

applications the water would have sent the cement completely through the aggregate

and into the subbase, leaving the aggregate with little cement for bonding. Although a

wide range of compressive strengths were obtained, none of the mixtures provide

strength equal to that of conventional concrete.

In comparing compressive strength with the W/C ratio and different A/C ratios, it is

shown that an increase in the A/C ratio results in a decrease in its strength. Although

the W/C ratio influences the strength of pervious concrete, it alone does not dictate the

potential strength of the concrete. Figures 4.4.1and 4.4.2 show the relationship of

strength versus W/C ratio and A/C ratio.



54

*Compaction energy exceeded 341 kN-m/m due to error in testing procedures.

Table 4.4.3 Maximum Compressive Strength

Mix No.Water Cement

Ratio (by weight) Aggregate CementRatio (by Volume)

CompactionEnergy (kN-

m/m3)

CompressiveStrength

(psi)

1 1111 0.52 4.00 341 2188*

1112 341 1537

1121 1544 1750

1122 1544 1750

2 2111 0.39 4.00 341 1516

2112 341 1433

2121 1544 1242

2122 1544 1534

3 3211 0.44 5.00 341 1417

3212 341 1251

3221 1544 1487

3222 1544 1484

4 4211 0.35 4.00 341 1686

4212 341 1494

4221 1544 1716

4222 ---Void--- ---Error--- 1544 ---Void---

5 5311 0.33 6.00 341 830

5312 341 1050

5321 1544 843

53221544

9706 6311 0.38 6.00 341 811

6312 341 836

6321 1544 1012

6322 1544 1067

7 7411 0.32 7.00 341 717

7412 341 679

7421 1544 830

7422 1544 743

8 8411 0.39 7.00 341 715

8412 341 579

8421 1544 1000

8422 1544 866



55

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55

Water-Cement Ratio

C o m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h

( p s i )

Standard Proctor

Modified Proctor

Figure 4.4.1 Strength vs W/C Ratio

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5

Aggregate-Cement Ratio

C o m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h

( p s i )

Standard Proctor

Modified Proctor

Figure 4.4.2 Strength vs A/C Ratio



56

The strength of pervious concrete is strongly dependent on the A/C ratio and

compaction energy. The A/C ratio is interpreted into porosity. More cement decreases

porosity and increases unit weight. Higher compaction energies result in higher unit

weights which yield higher strengths. The experiments conducted on these cylinders

are consistent with these findings. Figures 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 show relationships between

unit weight and strength and unit weight and porosity.



57

100

105

110

115

120

125

500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300

Strength (psi)

U n i t W e i g h t ( l b / f t 3 )

Figure 4.4.3 Unit Weight vs Strength

100

105

110

115

120

125

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Porosity

U n i t W e i g h t ( l b / f t 3 )

Figure 4.4.4 Unit Weight vs Porosity



58

Permeability is affected by the A/C ratio. As the amount of cement in a mixture

decreases, which indicates an increase in the A/C ratio, the permeability of the pervious

concrete increases. This relationship is shown in Figure 4.4.5.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5

Aggregate-Cement Ratio

P e r m e a b i l i t y ( i n / h r )

Standard Proctor

Modified Proctor

Figure 4.4.5 Permeability vs A/C Ratio

Permeability can also be related to compressive strength. The compressive strength of

pervious concrete increases with the presence of more cement in the mixture, which is

a decrease in the A/C ratio. More cement in the mixture would fill void spaces once

occupied by air, thereby reducing the permeability of the concrete. This is represented

by Figure 4.5.6.



59

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Compressive Strength (psi)

P e r m e a b i l i t y ( i n / h r )

Standard Proctor

Modified Proctor

Figure 4.4.6 Permeability vs Compressive Strength



60

4.5 Site Investigation of Existing Systems

4.5.1 Parking Area 1 – Florida Concrete and Products Association

This area consists of 13 total parking stalls. The driveway portion and the 7 parking

stalls located on the south side of the parking lot are constructed of asphalt. This

asphalt area drains onto the remaining 6 parking stalls on the north side of the parking

lot. These 6 stalls consist of pervious concrete. A drain exists in the northeast corner of

the parking lot in one of the pervious concrete stalls. Estimated yearly traffic for this

pervious concrete area is 1,500 vehicles. Calculations are provided in Appendix A.

Calculations are based on the assumption that these 6 parking stalls are utilized every

day during the week. This parking area is not subjected to heavy truck loads and only

sees light automobile traffic. This would subject the pervious concrete to loads

approximating 3,000 to 6 ,000 pounds.

The pervious concrete area, constructed in 1999, shows minimal damage. Minor cracks

are located throughout the area. Of particular interest is the amount of algae forming on

the pervious concrete. Along the north edge of the parking spaces and also along the

eastern edge, a significant amount of algae have settled onto the surface. Although

structurally insignificant, this can have a detrimental impact on the filtration

characteristics. Figure 4.5.1 provides a detailed sketch of parking area 1.



61

Figure 4.5.1. Parking Area 1 – FC&PA Office



62

4.5.2 Parking Area 2 – Sun Ray Store Away

This place of business utilizes pervious concrete not in its parking lot but in its roadway

system just inside the gates. This is a storage facility subjected to a variety of loads.

Automobiles as well as moving trucks, vans, and semi-tractor trailers utilize this facility

thereby subjecting the pervious concrete to a high amount of compression loads

throughout the day. These types of trucks can weigh anywhere from 14,000 pounds for

straight trucks to 80,000 pounds for semi-tractor trailers. In addition to the 823 storage

units available for rental, this facility also has 62 parking spaces utilized for large vehicle

storage. On property are items such as boats on trailers, which can weigh upwards of

53,000 pounds, and recreational vehicles, which can reach weights of 45,000 pounds.

It is estimated that this facility sees approximately 66,800 vehicles on a yearly basis.

See Appendix A for calculations. Calculations are made utilizing the Trip Generation

Manual from 1991.

Damage to this pervious concrete system is limited to two areas, one is the area just

inside the gate and the other is the area in front of the garbage dumpster. Considering

that all traffic coming into the facility passes over the area inside the gate, it is not

surprising that a significant number of cracks are present. It appears, however, that the

garbage truck subjects the pervious concrete to extreme loads when emptying the

dumpster thereby causing cracking in the area in front of the dumpster. Figure 4.5.2 is

a detailed drawing of this area.



63

Figure 4.5.2. Parking Area 2 – Sun Ray Store Away



64

4.5.3 Parking Area 3 – Strang Communications

This parking lot for a 200 employee office building is subjected to the highest volume of

traffic of all the pervious concrete areas studied for the purposes of this research.

There are 71 parking stalls in three rows in this lot that are made using pervious

concrete. That is approximately 50% of the total parking lot. The remaining stalls

consist of asphalt. The pervious concrete is limited to the stalls themselves and the

areas directly behind them. The main entrances into the parking lot are constructed of

asphalt. The pervious concrete area is subjected to automobiles volumes

approximating 213,200 vehicles per year. These loads are approximately 3,000 to

6,000 pounds. Calculations are provided in Appendix A. Calculations are made

utilizing the Trip Generation Manual from 1991.

Constructed in 1991, this lot has minimal damage throughout. There is one area where

a significant amount of raveling has taken place. Raveling is the deterioration of the

concrete due to repeated loads over time on an area. The 9 spaces located in the

northwest area of the pervious concrete are raveling at the entrance to each stall. Since

these spaces are closest to the building, they would be subjected to the most traffic.

There is also a small amount of raveling at the entrance to the parking row on the west.

Again this is due to repeated traffic. Algae have also made a significant presence in this

parking lot. Figure 4.5.3 shows the location of the raveling and algae in this parking

area.



65

Figure 4.5.3. Parking Area 3 – Strang Communications



66

4.5.4 Parking Area 4 – Murphy Veterinary Clinic

This is a 13 space parking lot constructed in 1987. It is subjected to low traffic volumes

and loads, approximately 11,200 vehicles per year. The loads on this pervious concrete

would be approximately 3,000 to 6,000 pounds per vehicle. Calculations are provided

in Appendix A. This facility employs 4 persons and schedules patients in 15 minute

increments. Calculations are based on the assumption that this business sees 4

patients each hour for the 8 hour day.

There are two entrance/exit points located at the east and west sides of the lot. The

pervious concrete driveway on the west side stops just short of the garbage dumpster.

The driveway connecting the pervious concrete to the roadway is constructed of

asphalt. This is so not to subject the pervious concrete to the heavy loads of the

garbage truck. The pervious concrete driveway on the east side stops short of the main

roadway by approximately 15 feet. This 15 foot section is made of conventional

concrete. The builders, recognizing this area would be subjected to a high degree of

stress from vehicles turning into the driveway, placed a stronger material to withstand

those stresses.

This parking area is in remarkable condition for having been constructed 17 years ago.

There is no damage in any of the expected areas, the entrance points to the lot and to

the individual stalls. Figure 4.5.4 provides graphical representation of this parking area.



67

Figure 4.5.4. Parking Area 4 – Murphy Veterinary Clinic



68

4.5.5 Parking Area 5 – Dental Office

Built in 1991, this 17 space parking lot is part of a small medical plaza. It is subjected to

a volume of vehicles during the year equal to approximately 9,600 vehicles. The

pervious concrete in this parking lot would be subjected to loads approximating 3,500

pounds per automobile. However the garbage truck would subject the pervious

concrete to a significantly higher loading of approximately 31,000 – 51,000 pounds

depending on the weight of the load. Calculations are provided in Appendix A. This

office employs 5 persons and schedules appointments in 15 minute increments.

Calculations are based on the assumption that 4 patients are seen every hour for the

entire 8 hour day.

This parking area has significant damage throughout the lot. Unlike the other parking

areas in this study, this lot has a driveway constructed of pervious concrete. Not only is

this area subjected to the loadings of every vehicle that enters the facility, the weekly

garbage truck utilizes the driveway to gain access to the dumpster located just north of

the entrance. The result is a large amount of raveling and crushing throughout the

entire entrance. There is also a considerable amount of raveling in front of the 4

parking stalls just inside the entrance. These would be the spaces utilized the most

when entering the lot. Algae growth in this lot is minimal. Figure 4.5.5 shows the

damage in this particular lot.



69

Figure 4.5.5. Parking Area 5 – Dental Office



70

4.6 Design Vehicles

This study will determine the acceptable level of vehicular loads on pervious concrete

pavements based on the compressive strength results obtained from experiments.

AASHTO classifies vehicles into four classes; passenger cars, buses, trucks, and

recreational vehicles. Within those four classes fifteen separate types of vehicles are

defined. Table 4.6.1 lists the fifteen types of vehicles defined by AASHTO. AASHTO

breaks down these categories due to changes in dimensions.

Table 4.6.1 Design Vehicles

Design Vehicle Type Symbol

Passenger Car P

Single-Unit Truck SU

Buses

Intercity Bus BUS-12

City Transit Bus CITY-BUS

Conventional School Bus (65 pass.) S-BUS 11Large School Bus (84 pass.) S-BUS 12

Articulated Bus A-BUS

Trucks

Intermediate Semitrailer WB-12

Intermediate Semitrailer WB-15

Interstate Semitrailer WB-19

Interstate Semitrailer WB-20

Double-Bottom-Semitrailer/Trailer WB-20D

Triple-Semitrailer/Trailer WB-30T

Turnpike Double-Semitrailer/Trailers WB-33D

Recreational Vehicles

Motor Home MHCar and Camper Trailer P/T

Car and Boat Trailer P/B

Motor Home and Boat Trailer MH/BFarm Tractor TR

Source: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and

Streets, 2004, p.17.



71

Each of the vehicles provides varying turning radii which is crucial in highway design.

For the purpose of this research, however, dimensions are not as significant as the

vehicle weight. Although the vehicles within the same class have varying dimensions,

there weights generally fall within a common range. Vehicle manufacturers divide

vehicles into eight separate weight classes. These weight classes are provided in Table

4.6.2. Also included in this table is the maximum weight any one axle or axle group

would be subjected to at any time with the exception to Class 8 vehicles. Class 8

represents a wide variety of vehicles that have different weight distributions. Table

4.6.3 represents some of the vehicles from Class 8 and their corresponding maximum

axle weight.



72

Table 4.6.2 Weight Classifications

WeightClassifications GVWR

Weight Pounds(lbs)

MaximumWeight/Axle

MaximumWeight/Wheel

Light Class 1 6,000 or less 3,600 1,800

Class 2 6,001 - 10,000 6,000 3,000

Medium Class 3 10,001 - 14,000 11,200 5,600

Class 4 14,001 - 16,000 12,800 6,400

Class 5 16,001 - 19,500 15,600 7,800

Class 6 19,501 - 26,000 20,800 10,400

Medium Heavy Duty Class 7 26,001 - 33,000 26,400 13,200

Heavy Duty Class 8 33,001 or over

Table 4.6.3 Class 8 Vehicles – Weight Classification

Class 8 Vehicles Axles

Weight Pounds

(lbs)

Maximum

Weight/Axle

Maximum

Weight/Wheel

Tractor Trailer 5 80,000 - 90,000 32,000 - 39,600 16,000 - 19,800

6 80,000 - 100,000 38,400 - 48,000 19,200 - 24,000

Turnpike Double 9 105,500 - 147,000 32,000 - 33,500 16,000 - 16,750

Tour Bus 3 50,000 40,000 20,000

Single Unit Truck2 or

3 40,000 - 65,000 32,000 - 52,000 16,000 - 26,000

4 62,000 - 70,000 24,800 - 28,000 12,400 - 14,000

Motor Home 45,000 27,000 13,500



73

Source: www.ctea.on.ca

Figure 4.6.1 gives a graphical representation of the types of vehicles that are attributed

to each of the eight classifications.

Figure 4.6.1 Design Vehicles

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Class 5

Class 6

Class 7

Class 8



74

Figures 4.6.2 and 4.6.3 compare the maximum weight of one wheel or wheel group of

each of the vehicle classes with compressive strength attained when testing the

pervious concrete cylinders. The graphs indicate whether the pervious concrete tested

would be able to support a static load of the indicated vehicles. The graphs are divided

into acceptable and unacceptable pervious concrete mixtures. Mixtures 5 through 8

provided such low compressive strength they would not be considered acceptable for

any application and are therefore the comparisons are given in a separate graph.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 2

1 1 2 1

1 1 2 2

2 1 1 1

2 1 1 2

2 1 2 1

2 1 2 2

3 2 1 1

3 2 1 2

3 2 2 1

3 2 2 2

4 2 1 1

4 2 1 2

4 2 2 1

Cylinder

S t r e n g t h

( l b s )

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Single Unit Truck Max

Tractor Trailer Max

Tour Bus

Tractor Trailer Min

Motor Home

Class 4

Class 5

Class 6

Single Unit Truck Min

Class 7

Figure 4.6.2 Vehicle Class Weights vs Cylinder Compressive Strengths-Acceptable

Mixtures



75

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

5 3 1 1

5 3 1 2

5 3 2 1

5 3 2 2

6 3 1 1

6 3 1 2

6 3 2 1

6 3 2 2

7 4 1 1

7 4 1 2

7 4 2 1

7 4 2 2

8 4 1 1

8 4 1 2

8 4 2 1

8 4 2 2

Cylinder

S t r e n g t h

( l b s )

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Single Unit Truck Max

Tractor Trailer Max

Tour Bus

Tractor Trailer Min

Motor Home

Class 4

Class 5

Class 6

Single Unit Truck Min

Class 7

Figure 4.6.3 Vehicle Class Weights vs Cylinder Compressive Strengths-UnacceptableMixtures

4.7 Pavement Thickness Design

Utilizing the parameters discussed in the previous section, minimum pavement

thicknesses for varying soil types, vehicle loadings, and percentage of trucks were

calculated and are provided in Table 4.7.1, Table 4.7.2, Table 4.7.3, and Table 4.7.4.



76

Table 4.7.1Minimum Pavement Thickness for 5% Trucks

ADT

k(pci)

500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 3000 3500

50 4.9 5.3 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.4 6.8 7.0 7.2

75 4.7 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.8 5.9 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.0

100 4.5 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.4 6.6 6.8

125 4.3 4.7 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 5.9 6.3 6.5 6.7

150 4.1 4.6 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.7 6.2 6.4 6.6

175 4.0 4.4 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.6 6.0 6.3 6.4

200 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.9 6.1 6.3

225 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.8 6.0 6.2

250 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.4 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.7 5.9 6.1

275 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.5 5.8 6.0

300 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.4 5.7 5.9

325 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.7 5.3 5.5 5.8

350 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.5 5.1 5.4 5.6

375 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 5.0 5.3 5.5

400 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.8 5.1 5.4



77

Table 4.7.2 Minimum Pavement Thickness for 10% Trucks

ADT

k(pci)

500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 3000 3500

50 5.6 6.0 6.3 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.8 8.0

75 5.4 5.8 6.1 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.7 7.8

100 5.2 5.6 5.9 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.7

125 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.4 7.6

150 4.9 5.3 5.6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.7 6.9 7.0 7.2 7.4

175 4.7 5.1 5.5 6.0 6.3 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.9 7.1 7.3

200 4.5 5.0 5.3 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2

225 4.3 4.8 5.2 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.1

250 4.1 4.7 5.1 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0

275 4.0 4.5 4.9 5.5 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.9

300 4.0 4.3 4.7 5.4 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.9

325 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.8

350 4.0 4.0 4.2 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.7

375 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.6

400 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.5



78


ADT

k(pci)

500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 3000 3500

50 6.0 6.4 7.0 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.8 8.0 > 8 > 8 > 8

75 5.8 6.2 6.8 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.8 8.0 > 8 > 8

100 5.6 6.0 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.8 > 8 > 8

125 5.4 5.9 6.5 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.7 > 8 > 8

150 5.3 5.7 6.4 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.9 > 8

175 5.1 5.6 6.3 6.5 6.8 7.0 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.8 > 8

200 5.0 5.5 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.9 7.0 7.2 7.3 7.7 8.0

225 4.8 5.3 6.0 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.6 7.9

250 4.7 5.2 5.9 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.1 7.6 7.8

275 4.5 5.1 5.8 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.0 7.5 7.7

300 4.3 4.9 5.7 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.9 7.4 7.6

325 4.0 4.7 5.5 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.3 7.5

350 4.0 4.5 5.4 5.7 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.2 7.4

375 4.0 4.1 5.3 5.6 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.7 7.1 7.4

400 4.0 4.0 5.1 5.5 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 7.1 7.3



79


ADT

k(pci)

500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 3000 3500

50 6.3 7.0 7.3 7.6 7.8 8.0 > 8 > 8 > 8 > 8 > 8

75 6.1 6.8 7.2 7.4 7.7 7.8 > 8 > 8 > 8 > 8 > 8

100 5.9 6.6 7.0 7.3 7.5 7.7 8.0 > 8 > 8 > 8 > 8

125 5.8 6.5 6.9 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.9 > 8 > 8 > 8 > 8

150 5.6 6.4 6.7 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.8 7.9 > 8 > 8 > 8

175 5.5 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.7 7.8 8.0 > 8 > 8

200 5.3 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.6 7.7 7.9 > 8 > 8

225 5.2 6.0 6.4 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.5 7.6 7.8 > 8 > 8

250 5.1 5.9 6.3 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.4 7.6 7.7 8.0 > 8

275 4.9 5.8 6.2 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.9 > 8

300 4.7 5.0 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.8 8.0

325 4.5 5.5 6.0 6.3 6.5 6.8 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 8.0

350 4.2 5.4 5.8 6.2 6.4 6.7 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9

375 4.0 5.3 5.7 6.1 6.3 6.6 7.0 7.1 7.3 7.6 7.8

400 4.0 5.1 5.6 6.0 6.2 6.5 6.9 7.0 7.2 7.5 7.7



80

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

Errors of the past will dictate designs of the future. Unfortunately there is not a precise

recipe for pervious concrete that will yield a high compressive strength and porosity.

Testing along with analysis of existing systems is the best method for developing a

range of values which will lead to a functional design.

Relying on the analysis of existing parking lots, the use of pervious concrete should be

limited to areas not subjected to high volumes of traffic; one of the parking lots

investigated was subjected to approximately 213,000 of vehicles trips per year.

Raveling of the pervious concrete is limited to the entrance and exit points of parking

areas. Therefore areas subjected to high volumes should not be constructed of

pervious concrete but either asphalt or conventional concrete. Another concern is

maintenance vehicles such as garbage trucks. Although existing parking lots are able

to withstand these vehicles driving through the lot, that portion of the pavement where

these vehicles load and unload is heavily damaged. Recommendations are that

pervious concrete should not be placed in areas subjected to repeated heavy loads.

Testing of pervious concrete provides additional information as to selecting appropriate

ratios. An A/C ratio less than 5 in combination with a W/C ratio in the range of 0.35 –

0.39 provided the highest compressive strength without jeopardizing permeability.



81

Higher A/C ratios do not supply enough cement and higher W/C ratios tend to eliminate

void spaces.

Another aspect is compaction energy. The energy applied to the pervious concrete

utilizing the modified Proctor compaction method was approximately 1544 kN-m/m3.

The higher compaction energy was not detrimental to the porosity but did allow the

compressive strength to increase.

Even though the compressive strength of the pervious concrete is considerably less

than that of conventional concrete, the strengths achieved would be able to sustain

loadings from vehicles ranging from automobiles to tractor trailers up to 80,000 lbs. All

of the mixtures tested, however, did not attain compressive strength strong enough to

sustain such high vehicle loadings. On the other hand a couple of the mixtures would

be able to sustain higher vehicle loadings in the order of 100,000 lbs.

Recommendations are that pervious concrete be limited to areas that are subjected to

small vehicle loads with occasional use by larger vehicles.

Pavement thickness design is dependent on several factors. Those include the quality

of the subgrade, the compressive strength on the pavement, and the traffic loadings on

the pavement. Without accurate traffic counts or knowledge of the type of soil used it is

difficult to develop exact design numbers. The tables provided in this thesis are meant

to be used as a guideline. They do however illustrate the effect increasing the volume,



82

loading, or quality of subgrade has on the minimum thickness required for an adequate

design.

Pervious concrete, although not as strong as conventional concrete, provides an

acceptable alternative when used in low volume and low impact areas. Strength is

sacrificed for permeability but not to any degree which would render the pervious

concrete not functional.

5.2 Recommendations for Future Research

There are several areas that need to be addressed in future research. The aggregate

used in this study was limited to one type and size. Larger and harder aggregate

should provide a higher compressive strength, the effect on porosity and permeability

rates would have to be studied.

The A/C ratios used in this research ranged from 4:1 to 7:1. Those mixtures with the

higher ratios, 6:1 and 7:1, were deemed unacceptable due to their low compressive

strengths. This should provide a good starting point for future research. More research

should limit the A/C ratios to less than 5:1; even attempting ratios as low as 2:1. With

such high permeability rates obtained, it is reasonable to assume that lower A/C ratios

would still proved acceptable levels of permeability.



83

Compaction energy should also be considered. The Modified Proctor compaction test

provided a high level of energy but higher levels should be tested and compared. Again

considering the high rates of permeability, more compaction of the pervious concrete

should not be detrimental.

Accurate traffic studies should be conducted. Time constraints limited the traffic

analysis in this research to estimates. Existing sites should be thoroughly evaluated for

volume and loadings for all days of the week and for all hours in order to provide a more

accurate representation of what the pervious concrete is subjected to on a daily basis.

The research conducted for the purpose of this thesis cannot be considered extensive.

Although it encompasses a diverse amount of variables, there is room for much more

research. The data provided, however, can be a useful tool for future research and

pervious concrete design.

Finally, pavement thickness design is area which was only briefly investigated in this

thesis. Future research in this matter needs to be explored. Exact traffic volumes and

loadings should be determined for a variety of businesses. Obviously the more exact

data available for design the more accurate the solution.



84

APPENDIX A: CALCULATIONS



85

Compaction Energy – Standard Proctor Compaction Test

( )( )( )( )

( )( )( )( )

( )( )( )( )

( )

33

33

m

mkN341

m00164741.0

m305.0kN1000

81.9kg5.2325

E

ft

lbft7090

ft0581776.0

ft1lb5.5325E

VolumeHeightWeightLayerslayer /BlowsE

•=

=

•==

=

Compaction Energy – Modified Proctor Compaction Test

( )( )( )( )

( )( )( )( )

( )( )( )( )

( )

33

33

m

mkN1544

m00164741.0

m457.0kN1000

81.9kg54.4525

E

ft

lbft32229

ft0581776.0

ft5.1lb10525E

Volume

HeightWeightLayerslayer /BlowsE

•=

=

•==

=



86

Calculations for FC&PA Office

year

vehicles1560

year

weeks52

week

days5

day

vehicles6=

Calculations for Sun Ray Store Away

Weekday

day

vehicles191T

00129.0823245.3T

00129.0x

245.3T

1

1

=

+=

+=

−

−

year

vehicles660,49

year

weeks52

week

days5

day

vehicles191=

Saturday

day

vehicles205T

00242.0823

008.6T

00242.0x

008.6T

1

1

=

−=

−=

−

−

year

vehicles660,10

year

weeks52

week

day1

day

vehicles205=



87

Sunday

day

vehicles126T

00258.0823

433.4T

00258.0

x

433.4T

1

1

=

+=

+=

−

−

year

vehicles552,6

year

weeks52

week

day1

day

vehicles126=

year vehicles872,66

year vehicles552,6

year vehicles660,10

year vehicles660,49 =

+

+

Calculations for Strang Communications

( )

day

vehicles820T

701.2200ln756.0Tln

701.2xln756.0Tln

=+=

+=

year

vehicles200,213

year

weeks52

week

days5

day

vehicles820=



88

Calculations for Murphy Veterinary Clinic

year

hiclesemployeeve248,1

year

weeks52

week

days6

day

hiclesemployeeve4=

year

iclespatientveh984,9

year

weeks52

week

days6

day

hours8

hour

iclespatientveh4=

year

vehicles232,11

year


year

hiclesemployeeve248,1 =

+

Calculations for Dental Office

year

hiclesemployeeve300,1

year

weeks52

week

days5

day

hiclesemployeeve5=

year


year

weeks52

week

days5

day

hours8

hour

iclespatientveh4=

year

vehicles620,9

year


year

hiclesemployeeve300,1 =

+



89

APPENDIX B: ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL GRAPHS



90



91



92



93



94

APPENDIX C: TEST CYLINDER PHOTOGRAPHS AND GRAPHS



95

Load vs Displacement

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



96


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



97


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



98


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



99


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



100


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1800020000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



101


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



102


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



103


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1800020000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



104


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



105


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1800020000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



106


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1800020000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



107


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



108


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1800020000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



109


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



110


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



111


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



112


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



113


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



114


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



115


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



116


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



117


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



118


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

900010000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



119


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



120


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



121


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

900010000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



122


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

900010000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



123


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



124


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



125


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Displacement (in)

L o a d ( l b



126

APPENDIX D: TABLES FOR PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN



127


Standard Normal Deviates for Various Levels of Reliability

Recommended Values of Drainage Coefficient for Rigid PavementsPercentage of time pavement structure is exposed to

Quality of drainage moisture levels approaching saturation

Rating Water removedwithin

Less than 1% 1-5% 5-25% Greater than 25%

Excellent 2 hours 1.25-1.20 1.20-1.15 1.15-1.10 1.10

Good 1 day 1.20-1.15 1.15-1.10 1.10-1.00 1.00

Fair 1 week 1.15-1.10 1.10-1.00 1.00-0.90 0.90

Poor 1 month 1.10-1.00 1.00-0.90 0.90-0.80 0.80

Very Poor Never drain 1.00-0.90 0.90-0.80 0.80-0.70 0.70

Reliability (%)Standard

Normal Deviate(Z)

Reliability (%)Standard

Normal Deviate(Z)

50 0.000 93 -1.476

60 -0.253 94 -1.555

70 -0.524 95 -1.645

75 -0.674 96 -1.751

80 -0.841 97 -1.881

85 -1.037 98 -2.054

90 -1.282 99 -2.327

91 -1.340 99.9 -3.090

92 -1.405 99.99 -3.750




128

Load Transfer Coefficient

ESAL (millions)Load Transfer Coefficient (J)

Up to 0.3 2.8

0.3 to 1 3.0

1 to 3 3.1

3 to 10 3.2

10 to 30 3.4

Over 30 3.6


Engineering, p. 481.



129


Total Growth Factor Design

Period Annual growth rate (%)

(years)No

growth

2 4 5 6 7 8 10

1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2 2.0 2.02 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.10

3 3.0 3.06 3.12 3.15 3.18 3.21 3.25 3.31

4 4.0 4.12 4.25 4.31 4.37 4.44 4.51 4.64

5 5.0 5.20 5.42 5.53 5.64 5.75 5.87 6.11

6 6.0 6.31 6.63 6.80 6.98 7.15 7.34 7.72

7 7.0 7.43 7.90 8.14 8.39 8.65 8.92 9.49

8 8.0 8.58 9.21 9.55 9.90 10.26 10.64 11.44

9 9.0 9.75 10.58 11.03 11.49 11.98 12.49 13.58

10 10.0 10.95 12.01 12.58 13.18 13.82 14.49 15.94

11 11.0 12.17 13.49 14.21 14.97 15.78 16.65 18.53

12 12.0 13.41 15.03 15.92 16.87 17.89 18.98 21.38

13 13.0 14.68 16.63 17.71 18.88 20.14 21.50 24.52

14 14.0 15.97 18.29 19.60 21.02 22.55 24.21 27.97

15 15.0 17.29 20.02 21.58 23.28 25.13 27.15 31.77

16 16.0 18.64 21.82 23.66 25.67 27.89 30.32 35.95

17 17.0 20.01 23.70 25.84 28.21 30.84 33.75 40.54

18 18.0 21.41 25.65 28.13 30.91 34.00 37.45 45.60

19 19.0 22.84 27.67 30.54 33.76 37.38 41.45 51.16

20 20.0 24.30 29.78 33.07 36.79 41.00 45.76 57.27

25 25.0 32.03 41.65 47.73 54.86 63.25 73.11 98.35

30 30.0 40.57 56.08 66.44 79.06 94.46 113.28 164.49

35 35.0 49.99 73.65 90.32 111.43 138.24 172.32 271.02



130

Truck Factors for Different Classes of Highways and Vehicles in the United States

Rural Systems

Other Minor Collectors

Vehicle Type Interstate Principal Arterial Major Minor Range

Single-Unit Trucks

2-axle, 4-tire 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.017 0.0030.003-

0.017

2-axle, 6-tire 0.21 0.25 0.28 0.41 0.19 0.19-0.41

3-axle or more 0.61 0.86 1.06 1.26 0.45 0.45-1.26

All single units 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.03 0.03-0.12

Tractor semitrailers

4-axle or less 0.62 0.92 0.62 0.37 0.91 0.37-0.91

5-axle 1.09 1.25 1.05 1.67 1.11 1.05-1.67

6-axle or more 1.23 1.54 1.04 2.21 1.35 1.04-2.21

All multiple units 1.04 1.21 0.97 1.52 1.08 0.97-1.52

All trucks 0.52 0.38 0.21 0.30 0.12 0.12-0.52

Urban Systems

Other Other Minor

Vehicle Type Interstate Freeways Principal Arterial Collectors Range

Single-Unit Trucks

2-axle, 4-tire 0.002 0.015 0.002 0.006 -0.006-

0.015

2-axle, 6-tire 0.17 0.13 0.24 0.23 0.13 0.13-0.24

3-axle or more 0.61 0.74 1.02 0.76 0.72 0.61-1.02

All single units 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.04 0.16 0.04-0.16

Tractor semitrailers

4-axle or less 0.98 0.48 0.71 0.46 0.40 0.40-0.98

5-axle 1.07 1.17 0.97 0.77 0.63 0.63-1.17

6-axle or more 1.05 1.19 0.9 0.64 - 0.64-1.19

All multiple units 1.05 0.96 0.91 0.67 0.53 0.53-1.05

All trucks 0.39 0.23 0.21 0.07 0.24 0.07-0.39




131

REFERENCES

Aitcin, Pierre-Claude, Neville, Adam, How the Water-Cement Ratio Affects Concrete Strength , Concrete International, August 2003, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp 51-58.

Brown, Dan, Pervious Concrete Pavement: A Win-Win System , Concrete TechnologyToday, August 2003, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp 1-3.

Das, Braja M., Principles of Geotechnical Engineering , 5th ed., Brooks/Cole, California,2002.

Ghafoori, Nader, Development of No-Fines Concrete Pavement Applications , Journal of Transportation Engineering, May/June 1995, Vol. 126, No. 3, pp 283-288.

Ghafoori, Nader, Laboratory Investigation of Compacted No-Fines Concrete for Paving Materials , Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, August 1995, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp 183-191.

Ghafoori, Nader, Building and Nonpavement Applications of No-Fines Concrete , Journalof Materials in Civil Engineering, November 1995, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp 286-289.

Ghafoori, Nader, Pavement Thickness Design for No-Fines Concrete Parking Lots ,Journal of Transportation Engineering, November/December 1995, Vol. 121, No. 6, pp

476-484.

Huang, Yang H., Pavement Analysis and Design , 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, New Jersey,2004.

Klieger, Paul, Further Studies on the Effect of Entrained Air on Strength and Durability of Concrete with Various Sizes of Aggregate , Concrete International, November 2003,

Vol. 25, No. 11, pp26-45.

Malhotra, V.M., No-Fines Concrete – Its Properties and Applications , ACI Journal,

November 1976, Vol. 73, Issue 11, pp 628-644.

Mather, Bryant, How much w in w/cm? , Concrete International, August 1988, Vol. 10,

No. 8, pp 20-27.

Mather, Bryant, Hime, William G., Amount of Water Required for Complete Hydration of Portland Cement, Concrete International, June 2002, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp 56-58.

Meininger, Richard C., No-Fines Pervious Concrete for Paving , Concrete International, August 1988, Vol. 10, No. 8, pp 20-27.



Trip Generation Manual , ITE, 1991.

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets , AASHTO, 2004.

www.gcpa.org

www.epa.gov

www.chargerconcrete.com

www.georgiaplanning.com

www.rempelbros.com

www.secpa.org

www.rinker.com

www.webdesignpros.net

www.ehs.berkeley.edu

www.cityofseattle.net

www.azcentral.com

Documents

Pervious Conc4